[Fwd: Evolution, and 'functional' + 'social']

[Daniel Everett]

Folks,

Tom's contribution to this discussion was, as usual, thought-provoking,
interesting, and enjoyable to read.

I do not understand all of it, because I am not quite sure how Tom is
using some of his terms, but I won't bother to go into that here.

If Tom means, however, that biological evolution is responsible largely
for language, both phylogentically and ontogenetically, and that
biology constrains cultural development, he is of course in good
company. Chomsky, Bickerton, and Pinker would all in fact agree and
would further accept that to draw a strong dividing line between the
two is a form of dualism.

I am convinced that biology does indeed constrain cultural development
and that Tom is right to recommend the writings of major evolutionary
theorists such as Mayr as appropriate to discussions on language
evolution. On the other hand, I think that it is pretty clear that both
language and culture are severely underdetermined by biology. It is an
interesting research question to consider how we might (or if we might)
tease apart the different contributions from biology and culture to
human language development.

For example, the Piraha people of the Brazilian Amazon lack grammatical
number and counting or numerals of any kind, yet they have what appears
to be a mass vs. count noun distinction. How might this be explained?
Is one (mass vs. count) the result of biology and the other (no number)
the result of culture (perhaps some Whorfian-style difference)? Or is
there some biological account of even the lack of number? If
biological, which genetic parameters does it fit? I have heard some
suggest, seriously, that DNA samples should be taken of the Pirahas.
This sounds strange, but it certainly is compatible with an extreme
biological viewpoint of language. (Arguably, the same could be said for
the fact that the Pirahas lack any basic color terms - all of their
four or so 'basic' color terms are morphologically complex or have
other, apparently more basic, meanings.)

The issues here are complex. I agree with Tom that there is unlikely to
be a simple, single dividing line between culture and biology in the
development of language.


Yet rather than conflate the distinction, I think instead that there
are multiple lines of division and that we are unlikely to ever be able
to reduce talk of one side of a line to talk about the other side. And
we can expect new lines to form and old lines to disappear as our own
interests shift. (The same goes for the brain vs. the mind.) There will
always be some explanations that are better stated in cultural terms,
some in purely linguistic terms, and others in biological terms, and
yet others in terms we have not thought of yet.

The reason the debate is so old is similar to the reasons for many old
debates - a single choice is perceived where there are many choices.
*Ultimately, the nature of your explanation will be based on what is
most useful to you and your interlocutors, not to the Truth of your
dichotomy.* There is no one way to go about thinking.

So choose what you want to describe and do it in the terms you like
best. If others find it useful, you are on to something. If those
others are 'scientists', then it is science. (Other boundary lines
arise...)

-- Dan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3279 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021203/4a27b0d6/attachment.bin>